It should have been phrased better, but I think they mean something not fitting into current classification systems. The response to which will be to improve the classification.
Most people who believe they have no social skills never based that conclusion on a wild guess, they had that conclusion brutally forced on them after decades of trying far harder than the extroverted personalities could ever imagine.
Right, aptitude has nothing to do with it, which is why everyone on Earth is equally well suited to IT, HR, sales, social work, professional sports, cleaning, acting, brain surgery, and law, and why those professions all have the same salaries.
The problem is that networking (the people kind) is a skill very far removed from typical technology skills, so the result is that the job offer goes to the candidate with a knack for tracking down the true hiring manager *instead* of the candidate who is actually qualified, or at best the correlation is completely random.
I've been contacted by job seekers who (mistakenly) thought I was the hiring manager, and they really did impress me as being not just totally insincere but creepy and potentially dangerous stalkers.
Some technology jobs are all about specific skills, but software development is a role that combines the problems of assembly-line work with the problems of research and development, and is a job that requires flexibility and creativity.
Most HR types are only interested in hiring the kind of people who generate the least amount of work for HR, and will never consider candidates with creativity.
Part of HR's role is to keep out people who will cause friction in the workplace or cause lawsuits, but that has to be balanced against the need to hire people actually suited to the job. HR is part of the team and has to take responsibility for calculated risks, not avoid responsibility at any cost. And HR especially has to understand that this is a line of work where cheaper can mean far greater costs in the long (or even medium) term.
individual donors' that helped Obama suck nearly a billion dollars out of a failing economy so HE could get a job
Maybe it was to prevent and even less qualified candidate from getting the job. Some would consider that an sound investment, though others of course would disagree.
Of course it was about the media. Photographs without on-the-ground context, for example, could spark further public demonstrations and there could be safety concerns.
That's not a good trade-off between public safety and freedom of the press, but the reasoning wasn't really a secret.
Seriously, what could be *more* in the public interest than debate about an issue where our politicians have just been caught intentionally if not maliciously lying about?
The single biggest problem is that insurance is not a good fit for funding health care.
The purpose of insurance is to provide for unpredictable emergencies that financially cannot be mitigated any other way. Annual physicals, preventative medicine, and management of chronic (i.e. pre-existing) conditions are not a good fit for insurance.
"The rule is far too weak to address the grave misconduct of predatory for-profit colleges,"
But the true purpose is to make it *look* like government is attempting to respond to predatory lending. The actual outcome will be approximately the same as the efforts to curb predatory lending after the subprime mortgage crisis.
It's *exactly* the way bankruptcy laws treat any other loan. If you borrow money to invest in a business, there is an expectation that the business will generate income within a reasonable time frame. If you try to declare bankruptcy before enough time to have made a good faith effort to generate income to repay the loan, the court will not discharge the debt.
The difference with student loans is simply that the time frame expected for this to happen is longer.
There is, however, an argument that the appropriate time frame needs to be changed to something shorter, say, graduation date + five years.
Slashdot Mirror
It should have been phrased better, but I think they mean something not fitting into current classification systems. The response to which will be to improve the classification.
It means an identifier that is not the actual name or not an actual literal description. Nothing is implied about accuracy.
It's progress. Just get the process to go backwards and solar power *will* solve the carbon and energy problems.
There are more than 36 bullies on Wikipedia.
I was working at a software firm that tried to implement diversity, by hiring the wives of "star" male employees.
That's not diversity, it's called something else.
"I feel like I've lost my entire cultural identity in effort to be part of the culture"
Probably most of the members of that "culture" feel exactly the same way.
You seemed to have missed the point.
There's good praise and bad praise.
if you choose not to network
If you think it's a choice you've missed the point.
...not a bug.
They've proven elections can be hopelessly unreliable and the electorate still won't care.
Terrorists can find ways to use any technology that's been developed in the last 5 000 years.
Most people who believe they have no social skills never based that conclusion on a wild guess, they had that conclusion brutally forced on them after decades of trying far harder than the extroverted personalities could ever imagine.
Right, aptitude has nothing to do with it, which is why everyone on Earth is equally well suited to IT, HR, sales, social work, professional sports, cleaning, acting, brain surgery, and law, and why those professions all have the same salaries.
The problem is that networking (the people kind) is a skill very far removed from typical technology skills, so the result is that the job offer goes to the candidate with a knack for tracking down the true hiring manager *instead* of the candidate who is actually qualified, or at best the correlation is completely random.
I've been contacted by job seekers who (mistakenly) thought I was the hiring manager, and they really did impress me as being not just totally insincere but creepy and potentially dangerous stalkers.
Some technology jobs are all about specific skills, but software development is a role that combines the problems of assembly-line work with the problems of research and development, and is a job that requires flexibility and creativity.
Most HR types are only interested in hiring the kind of people who generate the least amount of work for HR, and will never consider candidates with creativity.
Part of HR's role is to keep out people who will cause friction in the workplace or cause lawsuits, but that has to be balanced against the need to hire people actually suited to the job. HR is part of the team and has to take responsibility for calculated risks, not avoid responsibility at any cost. And HR especially has to understand that this is a line of work where cheaper can mean far greater costs in the long (or even medium) term.
that they wanted to make a statement about Apple and couldn't be bothered to come up with a better pretext.
individual donors' that helped Obama suck nearly a billion dollars out of a failing economy so HE could get a job
Maybe it was to prevent and even less qualified candidate from getting the job. Some would consider that an sound investment, though others of course would disagree.
Of course it was about the media. Photographs without on-the-ground context, for example, could spark further public demonstrations and there could be safety concerns.
That's not a good trade-off between public safety and freedom of the press, but the reasoning wasn't really a secret.
Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
In governing. It's something different from winning votes in a duopoly.
Galileo contradicted an ignorant *political* doctrine with a *scientific* observation.
Exactly the same.
Seriously, what could be *more* in the public interest than debate about an issue where our politicians have just been caught intentionally if not maliciously lying about?
He might as well have said that as a form of government, dictatorship is superior to democracy.
I think he did.
The single biggest problem is that insurance is not a good fit for funding health care.
The purpose of insurance is to provide for unpredictable emergencies that financially cannot be mitigated any other way. Annual physicals, preventative medicine, and management of chronic (i.e. pre-existing) conditions are not a good fit for insurance.
"The rule is far too weak to address the grave misconduct of predatory for-profit colleges,"
But the true purpose is to make it *look* like government is attempting to respond to predatory lending. The actual outcome will be approximately the same as the efforts to curb predatory lending after the subprime mortgage crisis.
It's *exactly* the way bankruptcy laws treat any other loan. If you borrow money to invest in a business, there is an expectation that the business will generate income within a reasonable time frame. If you try to declare bankruptcy before enough time to have made a good faith effort to generate income to repay the loan, the court will not discharge the debt.
The difference with student loans is simply that the time frame expected for this to happen is longer.
There is, however, an argument that the appropriate time frame needs to be changed to something shorter, say, graduation date + five years.
This is how science works.
It's not pretty, so you don't have to like it, but your not liking it is not a valid criticism.